Board hears early proposal for rotating high‑school block schedule as parents voice concerns about IEPs and learning needs

The Fort Lee Board of Education’s curriculum committee presented preliminary findings on a proposed rotating block schedule for Fort Lee High School at the Nov. 6 meeting, and parents and board members pressed the administration for more data about potential effects on students with IEPs, absenteeism and contract implications.

Committee members told the board they had visited neighboring districts that use rotating block schedules and that the committee “support[ed] consideration” of a four‑day rotating block with one full‑attendance day. The committee listed possible benefits—including longer instructional periods and fewer daily transitions—and flagged concerns such as logistics for a unified lunch period and the potential impact on special‑education students and those with attention challenges.

A security update and other routine business preceded extensive questioning by trustees. Board members sought specifics on how parent and stakeholder input would be solicited, whether the change would affect collective bargaining agreements, how the schedule would intersect with existing special‑education supports, and whether pilot implementations would be staged by grade or subject. The administration said the proposal is in an early phase, that site visits and research informed the committee, and that the district plans stakeholder meetings, small‑group forums and student and parent surveys before any vote. The administration emphasized it is not rushing to implementation.

Public comment included multiple parents who urged caution and asked that the district test community sentiment before investing resources. Ahmed Tacker, a parent, described recurring physical behavior incidents in kindergarten and requested more occupational‑therapy access and additional classroom aides for affected sections. Several parents with children who have IEPs said they feared longer class periods could disadvantage students with attention‑related needs. One parent said a block model would have been “the nail in the coffin” for their child, while others urged phased pilots and targeted accommodations for vulnerable learners.

Board members suggested forming an ad hoc stakeholder group that includes parents, staff and students; several trustees said they want a full board discussion with comprehensive data before any item is placed on a formal agenda. The board chair stressed that no vote on implementation would occur soon and repeated that the committee’s presentation was an initial, informational step.

Next steps cited by the administration included sharing committee notes, circulating a planned survey of students and parents, conducting additional site visits, and producing an impact analysis to show how a rotating block would affect collective bargaining terms, special‑education delivery, lunch logistics and absenteeism trends. The board did not vote on the schedule at the meeting.